OBJECTIVE: To establish guidance on grading strength of evidence for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Authors reviewed authoritative systems for grading strength of evidence, identified domains and methods that should be considered when grading bodies of evidence in systematic reviews, considered public comments on an earlier draft, and discussed the approach with representatives of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: The EPC approach is conceptually similar to the GRADE system of evidence rating; it requires assessment of four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Additional domains to be used when appropriate include dose-response association, presence of confounders that would diminish an observed effect, strength of association, and publication bias. Strength of evidence receives a single grade: high, moderate, low, or insufficient. We give definitions, examples, mechanisms for scoring domains, and an approach for assigning strength of evidence. CONCLUSION: EPCs should grade strength of evidence separately for each major outcome and, for comparative effectiveness reviews, all major comparisons. We will collaborate with the GRADE group to address ongoing challenges in assessing the strength of evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To establish guidance on grading strength of evidence for the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program of the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Authors reviewed authoritative systems for grading strength of evidence, identified domains and methods that should be considered when grading bodies of evidence in systematic reviews, considered public comments on an earlier draft, and discussed the approach with representatives of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: The EPC approach is conceptually similar to the GRADE system of evidence rating; it requires assessment of four domains: risk of bias, consistency, directness, and precision. Additional domains to be used when appropriate include dose-response association, presence of confounders that would diminish an observed effect, strength of association, and publication bias. Strength of evidence receives a single grade: high, moderate, low, or insufficient. We give definitions, examples, mechanisms for scoring domains, and an approach for assigning strength of evidence. CONCLUSION: EPCs should grade strength of evidence separately for each major outcome and, for comparative effectiveness reviews, all major comparisons. We will collaborate with the GRADE group to address ongoing challenges in assessing the strength of evidence.
Authors: David D Rahn; Renée M Ward; Tatiana V Sanses; Cassandra Carberry; Mamta M Mamik; Kate V Meriwether; Cedric K Olivera; Husam Abed; Ethan M Balk; Miles Murphy Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Benjamin J Powers; Remy R Coeytaux; Rowena J Dolor; Vic Hasselblad; Uptal D Patel; William S Yancy; Rebecca N Gray; R Julian Irvine; Amy S Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristen A Matteson; Husam Abed; Thomas L Wheeler; Vivian W Sung; David D Rahn; Joseph I Schaffer; Ethan M Balk Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2011-11-11 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Andrea D Furlan; Fatemeh Yazdi; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Anita Gross; Maurits Van Tulder; Lina Santaguida; Joel Gagnier; Carlo Ammendolia; Trish Dryden; Steve Doucette; Becky Skidmore; Raymond Daniel; Thomas Ostermann; Sophia Tsouros Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2011-11-24 Impact factor: 2.629
Authors: Sande O Okelo; Arlene M Butz; Ritu Sharma; Gregory B Diette; Samantha I Pitts; Tracy M King; Shauna T Linn; Manisha Reuben; Yohalakshmi Chelladurai; Karen A Robinson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Wei Duan-Porter; Brian C Martinson; Nancy Greer; Brent C Taylor; Kristen Ullman; Lauren McKenzie; Christina Rosebush; Roderick MacDonald; Samuel Falde; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Rebecca A Aslakson; Renee F Wilson; Oluwakemi A Fawole; Colleen C Apostol; Kathryn A Martinez; Daniela Vollenweider; Eric B Bass; Sydney E Morss Dy Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: Fatima Al Sayah; Sumit R Majumdar; Beverly Williams; Sandy Robertson; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 5.128